3 Answers
3

Abdullah (previously Ershad) has explained the Wahhabi movement
from the Wahhabi perspective and
has mentioned some nice and positive aspects of the Wahhabi movement.

Every group believes that they are right,
often they believe they are completely right with no mistake in their beliefs.
Typically it is almost impossible to find any serious criticism or
discussion of negative aspects and facts about the group in their own writings.
Let me try to provide a perspective from outside the movement.
Hopefully together with Abdullah's answer
we will have a more objective view of the movement.

Please keep in mind that
some of what I write below
only applies to more radical groups in the Wahhabi movement and
may not be correct/accurate about more moderate Wahhabi Muslims.

The Wahhabi movement is
a recent 18th century ultraconservative fundamentalist movement
inside the Salafi movement.
It was initiated by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab.
The followers of this branch dislike being called "Wahhabi"
because it designates them as followers of the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab
which is harmful to their claim that
they are the true followers of the true Islam.

Wahhabi movement is typically associated with Saudi Arabia,
since historically it started there in the 18th century,
became dominant through alliance with Al Saud family,
it is the dominant practice of Islam in Saudi Arabia, and
it is strongly supported and promoted by the Saudi government.
The cost of the alliance was that
the Wahhabi leaders should leave the political space to the Al Saud family.
Therefore the Wahhabi movement often discourages its followers from
participating in political process (like elections, popular protests, etc.).
Looking at the early Islamic history
it seems that discouraging political participation
is not based on early Muslim society but
rather an addition for the sake of the alliance between Wahhabi leaders and Al Saud family.
This apolitical attitude sometimes changes, e.g.
extremist Wahhabi groups like Taliban, ISIS, etc.
try to revive the Islamic Caliphate through force and violence,
and sometimes peacefully like the the Wahhabi movement in Egypt
which initially were against any participation in elections and
protests against Mobarak,
but changed their view after the Mobarak was toppled and
participated in the elections as the Al-Nour party.

The movement has a nostalgic and romantic view of the early Muslim society and
the first three generations of Muslims.
This idealization of Islamic society and early Muslims makes them
intolerant of practices not conforming to their understanding.
They believe it is possible to have a perfect Muslim society
by emulating the early Islamic society.
Anything after that period is considered with suspension and sometimes as corruption.
This is more true about those periods of Muslim history
where leaders of Muslims were not Arabs
(essentially anything after the Umayyad period, and
specially the Ottoman period).
There are some elements of pan-Arabism in the movement.

Sometimes the Wahhabi movement is categorized under
Hanbali school of Islamic jurisprudence (figh).
The movement started among Muslims following Hanbali school and
its growth so far has been mainly among the followers of Hanbali school.
But the movement is growing among other Sunni jurisprudence schools
(which have been considered more tolerant than Hanbali school).

The Wahhabi movement's strong insistence that they are following the true Islam
comes with a strong insistence that
other Muslims are not following the true Islam.
This makes them intolerant of other Muslims when
they seem to disagree with Wahhabi teachings.
This originates from their belief that
unlike other schools they are not interpreting Islamic sources and
their understanding of Islamic sources is just Islam and nothing more.
They typically have a literal reading of Islamic sources.
In particular
they have a very strict understanding of "tawheed" and
do not tolerate those who disagree with their understanding.
You can literally loose your head for doing something that
violates tawheed in their view.

They consider followers of other branches of Islam to be "mushrik".
They have a strong anti-Shia and anti-Sufi attitude and
consider them "mushrik".
They also take actions against these groups by takfiring them.
I should add that takfir is more than just calling someone non-Muslim,
it typically has severe consequences:
the takfir of a person makes him
loose legal rights,
loose ownership of his property,
invalidate his marriage, and
even gives permission to kill him as a kafir
(some extremist Wahhabi groups believe that
it is permitted and even duty to kill kafirs just for being kafir).

The issue gets more severe because
this practice of takfir is extended to other beliefs and teachings of the movement, e.g.
(as Abdullah confirmed)
some Wahhabi scholars takfir those Shia Muslims who believe that
some non-prophets like Ali ibn Abī Ṭālib (PBUH) are above some prophets (PBUT).
There are similar cases against Sunni Muslims practicing Sufism
for things like celebrating the birthdays of Sufi Muslim saints.

Wahhabi movement also destroys historical Islamic sites.
You will have a very hard time finding any historical Islamic place
from pre-Al Saud period in Saudi Arabia.
This extends to sites associated with the prophet and his family and companions.
All of this is done in the name of fighting "shirk".
Some Wahhabi scholars even want to destroy "Al-Masjid al-Nabawi" and
the prophet's own tomb (see also this article in the Independent).
Their justification is that some Muslims pray at these sites and
seek help from these saints and ask the saints to pray for them
in gaining God's favor.
They understand these practices as asking favors from someone other than God and
therefore "shirk".
There are verses in Quran which indicate it is not problematic to
ask others to pray for us in gaining God's favor.
However, according to the Wahhabi understanding
these verses only apply to living persons,
so it is forbidden to do so
if the saint has passed away and is not in this world.
Again, the issue goes back on their strong insistence on a particular interpretation.
By the way,
there does not seem to be any evidence that
the destruction of graves and historical sites that is practiced by the movement
is a part of Prophet's Sunnah,
nor that of the four Caliphs following him.

They are also hostile to any practices that is not based on
the actions and sayings of the first three generations of Muslims.
It is probably OK to say that one should not claim that
any practice which is not based on Quran and
sayings and actions of the prophet (and maybe early Muslims)
is not part of the original Islamic teachings.
However, because of their strong puritan tendencies and
idealistic view of early Muslim society as the complete perfect society,
they forbid such actions and teachings generally even if one makes no claim that
it was part of original Islamic teachings.
You are not allowed to come up with new practices acceptable in Islam by yourself.
This in particular confronts the teachings of Shia and Sufi Muslims
who believe that God may give new good teachings to Muslims
(through Shia Imams or Sufi saints).
It restricts the framework of acceptable and good practices to
those during the first three generations of Muslims.
It is an ultraconservative understanding of the Islam in the sense that
it is not sufficient that a practice does not violate basic teachings of Islam.
Anything that is not based on those basic teachings is forbidden.
This seems to be against the teaching of Quran that
regularly orders scholars not to forbid what God has not forbidden.
In this ultraconservative reading,
all such teachings are considered "innovation" (Bid'ah) and are forbidden.
They also have a very strict ultraconservative static understanding of Islamic law (figh).
They reject the influence of non-Arab cultures in later periods as non-Islamic,
but because of their idealistic view of the first three generation of Muslims
they do not make much distinction between Islamic teachings and
the Arab cultural of that time.
In other words,
the behavior and Arab culture of Muslims during early Islamic history become
part of Islam and are an ideal to be emulated,
while the behavior and non-Arab culture of later periods are rejected as unIslamic and
something to be avoided.

Because of these and similar issues and
their general intolerance and violence towards other Muslim groups
(sometimes based on small difference in
beliefs, practices, or interpretations of Islamic sources)
many Muslim scholars (Sunni and Shia) consider them extremists.
Some scholars see similarities between the extremist Wahhabi groups and
an early group in Islamic history called Kharijites
(Grand Imam of Al Azhar Universityal Sharif Dr. Ahmed Al-Tayebhere, Grand Mufti of EgyptAli Gomaa, some Shia scholars, and even Saudi Prince Mamdouh bin Abdulaziz).
Kharijites had a very strict and ultraconservative understanding of Islam and
were intolerant and violent towards other Muslims who disagreed with their interpretation (including the forth Caliph).

The estimated percentage of Muslims following Wahhabi school is relatively small
(less than 4% of Muslims, mainly in the central parts of Saudi Arabia and
coastal parts of United Arab Emirates).

However according to some reports,
they are the fastest growing group among Muslims
(this is mainly attributed to the heavy financial support by Saudi government
which some estimate
to provide over 90% of total money spent for preaching Islam in the world).

I am not sure what you mean by "is it a sect or normal religious group?".
It is a movement and a school of thought in Islam practiced by some Muslims.

@Ershad, regarding your other comments, thanks for your constructive critic. I have read these over time and have to look up to give references, I am adding removing them for now until I find a good reference. (There are some online newspaper articles but I would prefer to give a scholarly article in place of referring to them.) ps: referring only to the writings of a person or his companions is not always a good way of evaluating their views, these claims are historical and independent historical sources should be sufficient to support them.
–
KavehJul 19 '12 at 7:19

3

@Ershad, I do have some references (like this and this, and a few more online articles), but they are not of the quality I would like to include as citation. I would prefer to cite something like Hamid Algar, "Wahhabism : A Critical Essay" but I don't have access to it at the moment. I would personally be happy to learn that these claims are incorrect and for example Wahhabi scholars consider Shia as Muslims and not infidel/heretic/mushrik/kafir.
–
KavehJul 19 '12 at 9:03

1

@Abdullah, let's assume that any prophet is above any non-prophet, I should say I don't see how believing in some non-prophets being above some prophets would allow takir about them, that looks quite extreme to me.
–
KavehJul 1 '13 at 6:55

2

"There does not seem to be any evidence that destruction of graves is a part of Prophet's Sunnah, nor that of four Caliphs following him." check this link to know the evidences: islam.stackexchange.com/questions/7347/… annnnnd "even permission to kill them as kafir (some extremist Wahhabi groups believe that it is permitted to kill kafirs just for being kafir)." Neeeds citation
–
SohaebJul 30 '13 at 9:47

1

@Suhaib, as I wrote in reply to Abdullah, I don't know how strong or accurate those hadith are. (I am personally very conservative in accepting hadith which are not narrated extensively and through both Sunni and Shia sources.) What we know for certain is that the state of affairs contradicts them (e.g. the Prophet's grave has not been destroyed). For references, see the Wikipedia articles about takfir and Salafi movement.
–
KavehJul 30 '13 at 17:54

The term "Wahhabi" is nothing but an outcome of ideological attack by made by media and other sects in their efforts to harm the Call to Islamic Monotheism (Tawheed). It is sad to see some people still want to propagate this myth from what they know from hearsay information. And most probably, they even wouldn't know where the term comes from or what the so-called "wahhabis" call for.

The condition of the Muslims in his time was a dire one and is
described by historians and by both Imaam al-Shawkani (d. 1834CE) and
Imaam al-San'aanee (d. 1769CE) (both contemporaries) as one in which
the people had turned to worshipping graves, stones, trees and the
likes. The people had abandoned or were very lax towards the main
symbols of worship (prayer, zakah) and were content with innovations
which became their connection to the religion, and rare were the
scholars who would enjoin the good and forbid the evil, most were
content with the status quo, and those who were not content were not
able to speak out due to not having the will and courage.

In this setting, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab began calling the people to the
monotheism of the Prophets and Messengers, and rejected the worship of
the graves, attachment to them, and soliciting intercession from them,
and calling upon the dead for rescue from calamity and what is similar
to this.

And for the people who say this is something new - No, it is not. Many scholars before him called people to the same thing and long before them the Prophets and the Messengers. Many scholars spoke against plastering of graves like Imam Maalik. Some people who blame him of destroying "historically important" sites/graves would like to see this hadith:

Ali Ibn Abi Talib said to abul Hayyaj al-Asadi: "Shall I charge you
with a duty which the Prophet (salallahu alaihe wa-sallam) charged me
with? Destroy every idol or statue and level down every raised
grave." [Saheeh Muslim]

And regarding what people accuse him of rejecting Madhabs and Islamic Scholarship (without any proof), this is my proof that he didn't from his own Book, He said, as occurs in al-Durar al-Saniyyah (1/228-229):

Thereafter, we seek aid in understanding the Book of Allaah with the well-circulated, accepted books of tafseer (Qur’anic commentary),
and from the loftiest of them in our view are the tafseer of Ibn
Jarir, and its summarized version by Ibn Kathir al-Shafi’i, and
likewise (that of) al-Baghawi, and al-Baydawi, and al-Khaazin, and
al-Haddaad and al-Jalaalayn and other than them.

And in understanding the hadeeth, with the explanations upon [the hadeeth collection of] al-Bukhari by the prominent scholars such as
al-Asqalaani, al-Qastalaani. And [that of] al-Nawawi for [the hadeeth
collection of] Muslim, and [that of] al-Munawi upon al-Jami’
al-Sagheer. And we are eager for the books of hadeeth, such as the six
main books and their explanations, and we are occupied with all of the
books, in all of the various disciplines, both in the foundations and
the subsidiary [matters], in the principles, in biographies, in
grammar, morphology and in all of the sciences of this Ummah.

And we do not command the destruction of any of the authored works at all except what comprises that which makes the people fall into
polytheism, such as Rawd al-Riyaaheen, or [those books] on account of
which errors in creed are acquired, such as [books] on [Greek] logic,
for a group of the Scholars have prohibited them, bearing in mind that
we do not investigate into such matters (in any case), and like [the
book] al-Dalaa’il. [And the same is with any book] unless its author
manifests obstinacy [with respect to what is in it of error and
misguidance], in that case it is destroyed.

And as for what one of the Bedouins did of destroying some of the books of the people of al-Taa’if, then that occurred from him due to
his ignorance, and he and others have been reprimanded from the likes
of that.

“I tell you that– praise be to Allah – my belief and my religion,
according to which I worship Allah, is the way of Ahl al-Sunnah
wa’l-Jamaa’ah, which was the way of the imams of the Muslims, such as
the four Imams and their followers until the Day of Resurrection. But
I explain to people that they must devote their worship sincerely to
Allah (ikhlas). I forbid them to call upon the Prophets and the dead
among the righteous and others, and from associating them with Allah
in any act of worship that should be done for Allah alone, such as
offering sacrifices, making vows, putting one’s trust, prostrating and
other actions which are due to Allah and in which no one should be
associated with Him, not any angel who is close to Him or any Prophet
who was sent. This is the Message which was proclaimed by all the
Messengers, from the first of them to the last of them, and this is
the way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah. I hold a high position in my
village and people listen to me. Some of the leaders denounced that
because it goes against the customs they grew up with. I also obliged
those who are under me to perform regular prayer, pay zakaah and
fulfil other Islamic duties, and I forbade them to deal with ribaa,
drink intoxicants and other kinds of forbidden things. The leaders
could not criticize that or find fault with it, because it is
something that is liked by the common folk, so they directed their
criticism and enmity against that which I enjoin of Tawheed and that
which I forbid of shirk, and they confused the common folk by saying
that this goes against what everyone is doing, and they caused a great
deal of fitnah…” (al-Durar al-Sanniyyah, 1/64-65, 79-80)

So he never rejected Islamic scholarship rather he encouraged to take from them and note the bold part The four Imams refers to the four madh-habs.

His call was not a new call and nor an innovated call for he was preceded
in this rejection [of Worshiping graves] by centuries by other scholars such as Ibn Aqeel (d.
488H) and Ibn al-Jawzee (d. 597H), both Hanbalis, and the erroneous
nature of these practices was even indicated by Fakhr al-Din al-Razi
(d. 606H) - see this article and likewise al-Maqrizi (d. 845H), the
Shafi'i scholar from Egypt (see this article). His call started in
Huraymalah, then went to al-Uyainah where he won temporary support of
Uthmaan bin Mu'ammar, and then al-Dir'iyyah where he won the support
of the leader, Muhammad bin Sa'ud, who had accepted his call.

Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhaab wrote many books on Tawheed because his focus was on the Monotheism and he was trying to revive it. His interest was to remove shirk (polytheism) which was what the call of the Prophet himself. His books include Kitab at-Tawheed (Book of Monotheism), Kashf ush-Shubuhaat (Removal of Doubts), Masaa’il-ul-Jaahiliyyah(Aspects of the days of Ignorance) and much more. All surrounded the central theme of "Tawheed" (Monotheism).

And one more allegation is made by some people is that the Terrorists and Extremists follows the principles of Muhammad bin Abd al-Wahhaab. These are merely empty claims. These Myths are debunked by scholars and students of knowledge umpteen times in a detailed manner. You can read a detailed article here about the "Wahhabi" Myth and the complete debunking of it. This fact is also mentioned in Encyclopedia of World Biography:

Some have alleged that his strict interpretation of Islam has
motivated terrorist activities generally and has specifically formed
the basis for the militant Islam of terrorist mastermind Osama bin
Laden, a Saudi follower of Wahhabism. During his own lifetime,
however, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab favored debate and religious instruction
over violent campaigns as methods of persuasion, and the proposed link
between bin Laden and Wahhab’s thought has encountered strenuous
objections.

"The term "Wahhabi" is nothing but an outcome of ideological attack by made by media and other sects in their efforts to harm the Call to Islamic Monotheism", do you have support for this claim? I don't see anything wrong in the question so sentences like "How would you feel if same is done to you?" seems argumentative.
–
KavehJul 18 '12 at 23:20

4

@Kaveh If you want to know who used the Wahhabi term for the first time, I suggest you read this - goo.gl/fiEVJ . That is support for my claim. I don't blame the questioner. That question was rhetoric and not aimed at the questioner. I am sorry if you understood it otherwise.
–
AbdullahJul 19 '12 at 5:04

2

I think I understand the idea behind the school, it is hardly relevant to the issue. I also understand why they don't like it, yet I don't think it is an insult. My point about defensiveness was about the tone, not content of your answer.
–
KavehJul 19 '12 at 8:57

3

-1: This post isn't really focussed on the actual question asked. Large swaths of it are naught more than apologetic for attacks that the questioner never made, which just distract from the actual answer of what "Wahhabism" is.
–
goldPseudo♦Jul 2 '13 at 23:45

8

@goldPseudo While the questioner asks what "Wahhabism" is, my answer tries to explain there is nothing called school of Wahhabism. The answer is focused based on most popular beliefs that some people have. The question asks if it is a sect - and people believe it is a new school of fiqh, some people new school of beliefs and I tried to address that. I am sorry I cannot edit it. Thank you.
–
AbdullahJul 29 '13 at 4:32

It would be a mistake and unethical to criticize all of Islam on the
basis of doctrines particular to Wahhabi Muslims. Modern Islamic
extremism and terrorism simply cannot be explained or understood
without looking at the history and influence of Wahhabi Islam. This
means that it's important from an ethical and an academic perspective
to understand what Wahhabi Islam teaches, what's so dangerous about
it, and why those teachings differ from other branches of Islam.